>If you've already answered my question in a way that closes the loop but I keep asking to make you keep answering that same question, that means it's a dilemma, heh *tips fedora*
>y-you can't do that because it's not part of my limited ruleset that doesn't encompasas all outcomes, you're ruining my simplified worldview noooo!
Yes I can and no it's not. Your le epic loop of asking someone to repeat the same answer over and over isn't a dilemma.
Also this example shows one valid proof - negation. You proved its truth with negating the other possibilites, paradoxicly also opening the possibility for real justification.
GG no rez
The flaw with this argument is the assumption that reaching one of these conclusions is itself a flaw. It's like saying Math is pointless because you either reach a rational number or an irrational number.
Or alternatively, you correctly recognized anthropogenic nature of knowledge and idiotic, completely speculative problems like this go away, because they never really existed in the first place, they are a result of mistaken, reductive assumption of a positivist metaphysics.
>Whoa bro did you know the rules for math we made up aren't perfect omg the universe is so weird and unfathomable!!!
Not really, that is really not what I am saying. What I'm saying is a fundamentally evolutionary based perspective. What I'm advocating is the most scientific and rigorous possible standpoint. The universe itself is a concept, and a product of our perception, based on what is evolutionary relevant to our existence. Denying it, or pinning about it's unfathomable other forms of existence, is a waste of time. But completely disregarding the fact that our existence is defined by evolutionary relevance, and that our knowledge is a product of a heuristic-based simulation within our own neurological and biological restraints, is just stupid and backwards.
>We're just too stupid to ever comprehend it lmao
This trilema is also not a problem, it's just a fact.
>This trilema is also not a problem, it's just a fact.
I comprehend it perfectly, it's just wrong, based on incredibly silly, and insanely outdated, essentially religious assumptions.
>Ok, where does the trilemma fail?
In understanding that the question "why" isn't supposed, or capable, of uncovering ontological truths. In fact, Ontology itself is a just a mishandled epistemology.
People, at least scientifically minded people, don't ask "why" to uncover the absolute, divine TRUTH.
They ask why to learn and establish models for subjects and problems currently relevant to us, in a form that our animal little brain can comprehend.
In fact, when a scientists ask's why, they don't really want to know what is "TRUTH", they want to know what is the least wrong assumption currently available. Scientific methodology is no longer positivistic, it's build on pragmatic skepticism of Hume via Popper. Our knowledge isn't about uncovering truths, but merely debunking most obvious falsehoods.
>ask's
why'd you have to go and do that and ruin an otherwise good post
2 years ago
Anonymous
English isn't even my second langauage, it's like the fourth. Though that may have also been a typo, because I don't think I normally write ask's. I'm generally not a very thorough typer. But sorry about it anyway.
you didnt answer the question, you just side stepped it and hid behind muh fallible human comprehension. nobody said anything about absolute divine truths here. you are mixing concepts in a bad way.
2 years ago
Anonymous
And you were the one accusing others of not being able to comprehend the subject.
I did answer it. Clearly and completely. Rational, scientifically mind people use the question "why" differently than your shitty pseudo-academic "problem" assumes they would.
If you are endlessly just asking "why", you are not seeking a scientifically based inquiry into our best guesses about the nature of things, you are just endlessly trying, and logically infinitely failing, to find a Ultimate Truth.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Give one example in which it fails.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Basic question of "why do you enjoy this game?"
By your logic, this discussion needs to extend into private taste, then into evolutionary psychology, then into the nature of evolution, then into molecular biology, then into basic particle chemistry, then into cosmogony.
But in reality, the cycle ends once we reach a shared relatable level, because anything beyond that, is no longer relevant. Our question "why" seeks a pragmatic solution to relevant problems, not some kind of ultimate divine truth.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the cycle ends once we reach a shared relatable level
might this level be also described as essentially a brute fact (about this persons tastes and experience)?
yes it can be. no need for divinity or cosmology here. no need for truths either. not only are you mixing concepts, your projecting a need for some higher truth onto me. please stop this.
Make a point of your own for a change. I have no clue what you are saying at this point. You keep insisting on alleged mixing of concepts, but you can't formulate what the frick do you actually mean by that.
read this again and again and again
>We're just too stupid to ever comprehend it lmao
This trilema is also not a problem, it's just a fact.
2 years ago
Anonymous
1) axioma isn't a brute fact
2) base level of relevance isn't a brute fact either.
You clearly learned never really studied epistemology, have you?
>read this again and again and again
You might be moronic enough to think that is an argument, but it's not. Again: You don't have a clue about the most basic levels of epistemology, do you? You aren't even aware that argument and declaration are not the same thing, are you?
2 years ago
Anonymous
idk anon-kun. you keep doing the same thing. we have reached an impasse. are you german? the language barrier would explain it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
No, I'm not german. But we really aren't at an impasse, you did not start actually arguing yet.
You made a declaration that you pronounced unquestionable, and you simply failed to acknowledge my points. You also made a number of FACTUAL errors, namely conflating brute facts with axioma's and base level relevance notions. Those three things are completely different, and you need to understand that difference.
2 years ago
Anonymous
yes... i have declared my stance axiomatic and see no reason to change that. i mean, dont you see thats the point of the image? and what OP said? it doesnt matter how factual any of it was, it is as i declare it to be.
if not german then a language that leaves little room for interpretation i would guess.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>mixing concepts in a bad way >do it again
bruh. you the type that would walk across the room to solve the dichotomy paradox as well?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Make a point of your own for a change. I have no clue what you are saying at this point. You keep insisting on alleged mixing of concepts, but you can't formulate what the frick do you actually mean by that.
Alternatively you punch the annoying homosexual who keeps asking "why?" thinking he's being very smart and philosophical by repeating the equivalent of "Santa isn't real"
It's kind of dificult to think of question chains that lead to scenario A. You need a statement which yields answers that give an infinite sequence like, "60 is not greatest integer".A chain may go something like >why? >because 61 is bigger and not the greatest integer >Why? >Because 62 is bigger and not the greatest integer
And so on. These kind of chains are always built in the abstract too
This assumes that the facts don't change and that logic itself is purely black and white and never changes. Sometimes when you ask the same question in a different time or a different context the answers change. That's why you keep asking.
> How we see the nature of our reality is just a product of the limitations of evolutionary biology bro, we can't ever experience the thing-in-itself > My questioning of this though obviously isn't also part of the limitation of evolutionary biology
It's turtles all the way down bro. If we don't have access to the thing-in-itself, imagining that we don't is also a human concept.
this
Like I remember a homosexual prof on "Relativism" said our knowledge is based on previous "paradigm examples"
So I asked on what the first paradigm example would be based and it was gg no re
Basically once you solve german idealism the trilema disapears
Just use inductive, deductive and abductive logic at the same time dynamicaly and it's gg no re
Why?
why not?
It's literally pointless
A circular of size 1?
No, you refuted yourself.
Either the chain continues or you just made a new circle of size 0.
Why?
What if I kill the girl asking "why"?
Okay Alfred Jarry
Why ?
>the chain must terminate in one of only three possible options
>option 1: the chain doesnt terminate
Münchhausen was a hack.
why?
>If you've already answered my question in a way that closes the loop but I keep asking to make you keep answering that same question, that means it's a dilemma, heh *tips fedora*
But you can't close the loop. What you are saying is what scenario C refers to.
>y-you can't do that because it's not part of my limited ruleset that doesn't encompasas all outcomes, you're ruining my simplified worldview noooo!
Yes I can and no it's not. Your le epic loop of asking someone to repeat the same answer over and over isn't a dilemma.
If you "close the loop" it can only be via an axiom, which itself obviously can't be proven.
When your answer to why your "dilemma" isn't moronic is itself an axiom, I'm thinking your dilemma is fricking moronic.
whoa... he got it but pretends he doesnt.
>the point is secretly that it was moronic all along!
Bravo
>which itself obviously can't be proven.
There is a self-proving axiom of cogito ergo sum.
Axioms aren't things that can't be proven, they're things which you choose to assume without the need for proof. There's a difference.
Every axiom is self-proving
Profesor Zeidler at the University of Vienna already solved it homie
Proof?
https://www.amazon.de/Grundlegungen-Kurt-Walter-Zeidler/dp/3902803150/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?qid=1658667031&refinements=p_27%3AKurt+Walter+Zeidler&s=books&sr=1-3&text=Kurt+Walter+Zeidler
Now in English.
Also this example shows one valid proof - negation. You proved its truth with negating the other possibilites, paradoxicly also opening the possibility for real justification.
GG no rez
>dilemma
i'd rather just use psychological manipulation to trick people into believing my argument
The flaw with this argument is the assumption that reaching one of these conclusions is itself a flaw. It's like saying Math is pointless because you either reach a rational number or an irrational number.
Why?
It's about the objectivity of things, so no it isn't really a faulty assumption.
>Every axiom is self-proving
lol
Proof of A:
assume A
A therefore A
A
Or alternatively, you correctly recognized anthropogenic nature of knowledge and idiotic, completely speculative problems like this go away, because they never really existed in the first place, they are a result of mistaken, reductive assumption of a positivist metaphysics.
>Whoa bro did you know the rules for math we made up aren't perfect omg the universe is so weird and unfathomable!!!
I poop on these homosexuals
>Whoa bro did you know the rules for math we made up aren't perfect omg the universe is so weird and unfathomable!!!
Not really, that is really not what I am saying. What I'm saying is a fundamentally evolutionary based perspective. What I'm advocating is the most scientific and rigorous possible standpoint. The universe itself is a concept, and a product of our perception, based on what is evolutionary relevant to our existence. Denying it, or pinning about it's unfathomable other forms of existence, is a waste of time. But completely disregarding the fact that our existence is defined by evolutionary relevance, and that our knowledge is a product of a heuristic-based simulation within our own neurological and biological restraints, is just stupid and backwards.
>This trilema is also not a problem, it's just a fact.
I comprehend it perfectly, it's just wrong, based on incredibly silly, and insanely outdated, essentially religious assumptions.
Ok, where does the trilemma fail?
>Ok, where does the trilemma fail?
In understanding that the question "why" isn't supposed, or capable, of uncovering ontological truths. In fact, Ontology itself is a just a mishandled epistemology.
People, at least scientifically minded people, don't ask "why" to uncover the absolute, divine TRUTH.
They ask why to learn and establish models for subjects and problems currently relevant to us, in a form that our animal little brain can comprehend.
In fact, when a scientists ask's why, they don't really want to know what is "TRUTH", they want to know what is the least wrong assumption currently available. Scientific methodology is no longer positivistic, it's build on pragmatic skepticism of Hume via Popper. Our knowledge isn't about uncovering truths, but merely debunking most obvious falsehoods.
>ask's
why'd you have to go and do that and ruin an otherwise good post
English isn't even my second langauage, it's like the fourth. Though that may have also been a typo, because I don't think I normally write ask's. I'm generally not a very thorough typer. But sorry about it anyway.
you didnt answer the question, you just side stepped it and hid behind muh fallible human comprehension. nobody said anything about absolute divine truths here. you are mixing concepts in a bad way.
And you were the one accusing others of not being able to comprehend the subject.
I did answer it. Clearly and completely. Rational, scientifically mind people use the question "why" differently than your shitty pseudo-academic "problem" assumes they would.
If you are endlessly just asking "why", you are not seeking a scientifically based inquiry into our best guesses about the nature of things, you are just endlessly trying, and logically infinitely failing, to find a Ultimate Truth.
Give one example in which it fails.
Basic question of "why do you enjoy this game?"
By your logic, this discussion needs to extend into private taste, then into evolutionary psychology, then into the nature of evolution, then into molecular biology, then into basic particle chemistry, then into cosmogony.
But in reality, the cycle ends once we reach a shared relatable level, because anything beyond that, is no longer relevant. Our question "why" seeks a pragmatic solution to relevant problems, not some kind of ultimate divine truth.
>the cycle ends once we reach a shared relatable level
might this level be also described as essentially a brute fact (about this persons tastes and experience)?
yes it can be. no need for divinity or cosmology here. no need for truths either. not only are you mixing concepts, your projecting a need for some higher truth onto me. please stop this.
read this again and again and again
1) axioma isn't a brute fact
2) base level of relevance isn't a brute fact either.
You clearly learned never really studied epistemology, have you?
>read this again and again and again
You might be moronic enough to think that is an argument, but it's not. Again: You don't have a clue about the most basic levels of epistemology, do you? You aren't even aware that argument and declaration are not the same thing, are you?
idk anon-kun. you keep doing the same thing. we have reached an impasse.
are you german? the language barrier would explain it.
No, I'm not german. But we really aren't at an impasse, you did not start actually arguing yet.
You made a declaration that you pronounced unquestionable, and you simply failed to acknowledge my points. You also made a number of FACTUAL errors, namely conflating brute facts with axioma's and base level relevance notions. Those three things are completely different, and you need to understand that difference.
yes... i have declared my stance axiomatic and see no reason to change that. i mean, dont you see thats the point of the image? and what OP said? it doesnt matter how factual any of it was, it is as i declare it to be.
if not german then a language that leaves little room for interpretation i would guess.
>mixing concepts in a bad way
>do it again
bruh. you the type that would walk across the room to solve the dichotomy paradox as well?
Make a point of your own for a change. I have no clue what you are saying at this point. You keep insisting on alleged mixing of concepts, but you can't formulate what the frick do you actually mean by that.
>We're just too stupid to ever comprehend it lmao
This trilema is also not a problem, it's just a fact.
Alternatively you punch the annoying homosexual who keeps asking "why?" thinking he's being very smart and philosophical by repeating the equivalent of "Santa isn't real"
Anon thats not a nice way to treat your kids
why?
Because he's annoying.
why?
Have you heard that, actually, there were two Santas?
It's kind of dificult to think of question chains that lead to scenario A. You need a statement which yields answers that give an infinite sequence like, "60 is not greatest integer".A chain may go something like
>why?
>because 61 is bigger and not the greatest integer
>Why?
>Because 62 is bigger and not the greatest integer
And so on. These kind of chains are always built in the abstract too
This assumes that the facts don't change and that logic itself is purely black and white and never changes. Sometimes when you ask the same question in a different time or a different context the answers change. That's why you keep asking.
every question has an answer youre just either too moronic to reply or too stupid to ask
what is the answer to this question?
i dont know im too moronic to give a proper reply
I'm still not taking the vaccine
> How we see the nature of our reality is just a product of the limitations of evolutionary biology bro, we can't ever experience the thing-in-itself
> My questioning of this though obviously isn't also part of the limitation of evolutionary biology
It's turtles all the way down bro. If we don't have access to the thing-in-itself, imagining that we don't is also a human concept.
this
Like I remember a homosexual prof on "Relativism" said our knowledge is based on previous "paradigm examples"
So I asked on what the first paradigm example would be based and it was gg no re
I can't think of an example for C
parallel lines
For me it's infinite regress
Basically once you solve german idealism the trilema disapears
Just use inductive, deductive and abductive logic at the same time dynamicaly and it's gg no re
There are a multitude of points right fighting there